Abstract
AbstractLandscape multifunctionality, a widely accepted challenge for boreal forests, aims to simultaneously provide timber, non-timber ecosystem services, and shelter for biodiversity. However, multifunctionality requires the use of novel forest management regimes optimally combined over the landscape, and an increased share of sets asides. It remains unclear how this combination will shape stand vulnerability to wind disturbances and exposed timber volume. We combined forest growth simulations and multi-objective optimization to create alternative landscape level forest management scenarios. Management choices were restricted to 1) rotation forestry, 2) continuous cover forestry, and 3) all regimes allowed over a harvest intensity gradient from completely set aside landscapes to maximal economic gain. Estimates for the stands’ structural and environmental characteristics were used to predict the stand level wind damage probability. We evaluated averaged wind-exposed standing timber volume and changing forest structure under management scenarios. Intensive rotation forestry reduced tree heights and wind damage risk, but also reduced landscape multifunctionality. Conversely, continuous cover forestry maintained multifunctionality but increased wind damage probability due to taller trees and higher thinning frequency. Overall, continuous cover forestry lowers the total volume of wind exposed timber at any given time compared with rotation forestry. Nevertheless, a selective application of rotation forestry contributes to high economic gains and increases landscape heterogeneity. A combination of management approaches across landscapes provides an efficient way to reduce the amount of wind-exposed timber volume while also increasing habitat for vertebrate and non-vertebrate species and satisfying high timber demands.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference81 articles.
1. Aalto J, Pirinen P, Jylhä K (2016) New gridded daily climatology of Finland: permutation-based uncertainty estimates and temporal trends in climate. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:3807–3823. https://doi.org/10.1038/175238c0
2. Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J et al (2014) Metsänhoidon suositukset [Good forest management recommendations]. Forestry Development Center Tapio
3. Bélouard T, Marchadier E, Merzeau D et al (2012) Évaluation des facteurs de résistance au vent des peuplements de pin maritime après la tempête Klaus à l’aide des données de l’inventaire forestier 77
4. Blennow K, Sallnäs O (2004) WINDA—a system of models for assessing the probability of wind damage to forest stands within a landscape. Ecol Model 175:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2003.10.009
5. Brukas V, JellesmarkThorsen B, Helles F, Tarp P (2001) Discount rate and harvest policy: implications for Baltic forestry. For Policy Econ 2:143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00050-8
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献